Skip to main content

tv   [untitled]    February 23, 2012 6:00pm-6:30pm EST

6:00 pm
headlines with none of the mersey come alive in washington d.c. now tonight we're going to speak about bradley manning's the rainman meet and what it means in the first step towards a court martial that gary johnson former governor of new mexico and libertarian presidential candidate will be joining us to talk about last night's g.o.p. debate and the crisis of leadership within the party and then the obama administration has released a consumer privacy bill of rights outlining a plan to protect your data so is it any good and what are the chances we're actually going to see this go into effect and not just be trampled on we have all that morphine and i including a dose of happy hour but first take a look with the mainstream media has decided to miss. all right so tonight i'm not going to bother with what the mainstream media is covering today because tonight i want to take some time out to shine a light on something that happened yesterday at the white house press briefing which should make everybody in the mainstream media stop and think well since
6:01 pm
they're not talking about it today and for so that means that it hasn't you see yesterday's press briefing white house press secretary jay carney praised journalists that have been putting themselves into dangerous situations to bring this whole truth to bring the story specifically he was referring to the two journalists killed in syria re colvin and now let's also not forget that anthony should deed died in syria just last week these journalists deserve respect they deserve praise they deserve commemoration but this is where something really interesting happened a.b.c. senior white house correspondent jake tapper took this opportunity to call out the administration on its double standard of praising journalists who go abroad and yet waging a war and whistleblowers and journalists right here at home. praising these journalists who were killed. but i'll keep citing where you might just might be president biden that it is sort of. how does that square with the fact that this administration. has been so aggressively trying to stop aggressive journalism in the states by
6:02 pm
using the espionage act system to take whistleblowers to court here currently i think that you can go up to the sixth time before the obama administration you don't even use three times history. you're this is the sixth time you're sort of the cia officer for allegedly providing information to doesn't know about cia torture certainly that's something that's in the public interest of the united states this administration is taking this person to court it just seems to be a disconnect where you want aggressive journalism abroad you just don't want to stay well. now i got to say there is bravo jake tapper these are issues that we talk about all the time here on this show and so refreshing to see somebody who actually has access to the white house bring it up call them out. now let's take a look at carney's rather pathetic response i would hesitate to speak to any particular case for obvious reasons and i would refer you to the department of
6:03 pm
justice for. for more on on that i think we absolutely honor and praise the bravery of reporters who are placing themselves in. extremely dangerous situations in order to bring the story of oppression and brutality to the world i think that is. commendable and it's certainly worth noting by us and as somebody who knew both anthony and marie i. particularly appreciate what they did to bring that story to the american people i . as for other cases again without addressing any specific case i think that there are issues here that involve. highly sensitive classified information and i think that you know. those are. divulging or to divulge divulging that kind of
6:04 pm
information is a serious issue and always has been. not shocking at all that he would say that he doesn't want to refer to any specific case right that's always a good cop out to get away from having to admit that there is a broad scale policy of aggressively going after journalists and whistleblowers it's being carried out by this administration now as to saying though this deals only with classified information i guess what we see this is ministration pick and choose which leaks they want to go to the press and which ones they want to keep secret all the time their entire books out there bob woodward's obama's wars for example that you could argue are all about high level officials sharing classified information leaking things willfully so let's stop pretending that there isn't a double standard here ok jay carney and now every one of the people of this administration is so aggressively pursuing is some government or military employee there are actual journalists out there that are being attacked as well just think of the case of james ries and we spoke about yesterday where they're actively trying to pressure him to give up his sources but anyway you guys hear about talk
6:05 pm
about this stuff all the time here on the show why this stands out is because it's actually happening from within the white house press corps so thank you jake tapper if you remember he also gave jay carney a pretty good grilling after all lucky was killed but the sad truth is that he shouldn't be the only one doing this it should not be some rare moment where we actually patted journalist on the back this is how it should be every day this is the media's job and yet nobody else in the mainstream media has dared to do it they haven't even bothered to play this clip and talk about what happened yesterday because our mainstream media is a sad pathetic bunch of subservient government lapdogs who choose to miss. now speaking of the obama administration's war on whistleblowers bradley manning was arraigned for meat and what's the first step in the court martial process here manning was given official notice of the twenty two charges brought against him.
6:06 pm
for allegedly leaking more than seven hundred thousand documents to wiki leaks now the charges include that of aiding the enemy which carries a maximum penalty of life in prison for the prosecution however has said that they will be seeking life in prison not the death penalty now the other charges carry a combined maximum of one hundred fifty years behind bars manning chose not to enter a plea today he also profit choice of whether he prefers to be tried by a military judge or by military jury or by simply a judge so far the government suggested a trial date of august third which would be manning's eight hundredth day of confinement but the defense objected to this date so what can we expect to happen next joining me to discuss it is jane hamsher founder of firedoglake dot com jane thanks so much for joining us and i guess first is there anything i missed any other details that you know from the arraignment today. the only other thing that stood out as sort of peculiar was the fact that the prosecution filed a motion against the defense. basically admonishing them to keep.
6:07 pm
confidential classified information and there was some question as to whether david coombs had sent something out over on secure networks e-mail that what they considered classified it sort of felt like an intimidation tactic against coombs but the details weren't really discussed in court so it will be interesting to see how are they how would they know what david camm's was e-mailing were they spying on his e-mails you know that doesn't seem like it's particularly kosher but hopefully we'll find out more in the future now i know that last time when i was still the pretrial hearing from bradley manning at fort me there are a lot of people that came out to protest to show their support for manning did we see a crowd out there all today. i think there were some people there someone actually reported on twitter that they had showed up and asked a citizen to be admitted into the courtroom and they were questioned well are you a protester so i don't think they were particularly hospitable to them but there was probably the crowd out there today that they're normally was that the
6:08 pm
arraignment only lasted for forty five minutes so it wasn't really going to be a long procedure so probably not the support that there would have been otherwise jane i'm really curious to see what you think of the defense strategy here used by bradley manning's team because on one hand they're arguing that you know he was troubled and motioned the unstable at the same time they're saying that perhaps he had too much access that the rules were too lax there and he shouldn't have been able to you know to get to this classified information but then does that put into question this notion that he is a whistleblower that he said when they decided to leak this information because he felt like it needed to be shown to the world. that is the sixty four thousand dollar question i really hate to second guess the defense because i don't know military law i think a lot of eyebrows raised during the pretrial hearing when coombs brought up the fact that manning was a cross dresser and thought how exactly is this expected to play with a military. jury or judge you know what's the wisdom behind this when
6:09 pm
daniel ellsberg defended himself in the sixty's over the pentagon papers he added classic whistleblower defense but i don't know how that would play with you know a military court and david coombs seems to have earned bradley manning's trust so far and also i would note that we don't really know what the defense strategy is it probably would have been a mistake for coombs to lay all his cards on the table during the pretrial hearing so we've only sort of got the basic outlines of it and i think many much of that may have had to do with coombs didn't know because the government really hadn't produced everything that could have turned over everything what the government has against manning so i think we're still in a bit of a cat and mouse game so i hesitate to say what the defense strategy is let alone criticize it at this point now how do you think this plays into the broader war on
6:10 pm
whistleblowers that the obama administration has been waging i just played the clip of jake tapper giving jay carney a hard time do you think that he has a point that you know they want aggressive journalism abroad but not here at home i well i think they want to pretend like they support aggressive journalism abroad only when it's against their political opponents and not when it's big and. if you'll recall in the sixty's when richard nixon made some comments in the press that charles manson was guilty when manson was on trial and his jury was sequestered john ashcroft went to him and said you can't do this this. you know you're the commander in chief you're the president of the united states you are really prejudicing a jury even though the jury was arguably sequestered at that time and would not have heard those comments president obama in a in a you know to fund raisers that he was at a fundraiser with a high dollar funders and someone got him on video saying that you know bradley
6:11 pm
manning did it which is our group did more prejudicial especially since he is the commander in chief and you're talking about a military jury or a military judge and we have heard no such apology as such as rich as bitter nixon issued over charles manson so i think that they do have it in for bradley manning the president have a signal it's that much and they are trying to do something rather unprecedented which is say that because he knew that information he may have given to wiki leaks would wind up on the internet that made him guilty of aiding the enemy well by that standard anybody who gives information to a journalist knows that it will probably wind up on the internet and we're and would all be guilty of aiding the enemy so it virtually wipes out the whole profession of national security journalism so i think the implications are even bigger than what people are obama's war and whistleblowers are even bigger than what some people have considered so far and that's why you know it's unfortunate that we have to give jake tapper a pat on the back for doing this because you would assume the journalist to be
6:12 pm
asking these questions all the time but i got to play you a clip of archer last night's g.o.p. debate and then just really quick i want to comment on it. in a way we live in an age where we have to genuinely worry about nuclear weapons or going off in our own cities so everybody who serves in the fire department in the police department not just the first responders but our our national guard whoever is going to respond. all of us are more at risk today men and women boys and girls than at any time in history as country and we need to understand that's the context in which we're going to have to move forward and understanding the nature of modern calm but i think this is a very sober and i believe this is the most dangerous president on national security grounds in american history. so that's newt ought to run but of course al qaeda is always the threat i mean just really quickly in thirty seconds you know is this a we have to get used to as war on whistleblowers because we're told that the world is more dangerous now than it's ever been ever ever ever known that it's made an awful lot of money on the war on terror and so you know win or lose he will
6:13 pm
continue to do so it is it is interest to promote it and i think that that's the biggest problem is that so many people are making too much money on this and shutting down their political opponents using it are jane thanks so much for joining us tonight thank you. for a quick break but we return last night's g.o.p. debate was enough to make you want to bang your head against a wall story and get a libertarian candidate for president gary johnson's take on the absurdity when we come back. to the. people calling like you said for free and fair elections. and we're still reporting from the clinton people here behind me loud explosions. we keep.
6:14 pm
you know sometimes you see a story and it seems so you think you understand it and then you glimpse something else here sees some other part of it and realized everything you thought you knew you don't know i'm trying hard as i think.
6:15 pm
most americans probably know about miranda rights from watching hour after hour of crime dramas on t.v. or in the movie theaters. all right i must say that law and order s v u v like that they definitely help are in the phrase you have the right to remain silent and in my brain to those lines came out of a one nine hundred sixty six supreme court case miranda versus arizona which ruled
6:16 pm
that the taint criminal suspects prior to police questioning must be informed of their constitutional right to an attorney and against self incrimination so they instantly became a cornerstone of our justice system a sacred protection. then nine eleven happened and all of those sacred principles miranda the right to a speedy trial seem like all those principles were suddenly up for discussion so americans just seem to accept the notion that we were living in a dangerous place in time that exceptions should be made and the governments agreed with gusto and two thousand and nine the f.b.i. question the suspect umar farouk abdulmutallab also known as the underwear bomber for about fifteen minutes without reading him his rights. also known as the times square bomber was interrogated for three to four hours before being read his rights both under the public safety exception to miranda in which information from questioning before reading the miranda warning can be admitted in court in certain situations which public safety is a concern but that still was not enough for some people out there. one of the i've
6:17 pm
already given them his miranda rights. well i think obviously that would be a serious mistake. at least that we find out how much information we have and there are ways we can always play that's that's an old rule that was adopted during a very different time of conflict i think it's time for us to look at whether we want to amend the law to apply it to american citizens whose to be affiliated with foreign terrorist organizations whether they should not also be deprived automatically of their citizenship and therefore be deprived of rights that come with the citizenship when they are apprehended and charged with a terrorist there. and now it wasn't just the usual suspects rallying to erode miranda it was also the obama administration say just after his office i was apprehended eric holder took to the sunday morning talk shows to share the administration's new view after years of defending miranda they said we had
6:18 pm
a change of heart that's an important development would you work with congress to try to get that new wall passed we want to work with congress to come up with a way in which we make our public safety exception more flexible and again more consistent with the threat that we face and yes this is in fact the big news this is a proposal that we're going to be making and we want to work with congress about what new priority for the administration it is a new priority what kind of modification to talk about more time for the for interrogation before the miranda rights are read or or a lot i think there are a number of possibilities and those are the kinds of things that we'll be discussing with congress to make sure that we are as effective as we can be that agents are clear and what it is that they can do when interacting with people in this context so we're going to work with congress so that we come up with something that as i said gives the necessary clarity is flexible but is also constitutional is also. so less than a year later seems that the administration had tired of trying to work with kong. such a proposal they decided to go it alone in march of two thousand and eleven the obama
6:19 pm
administration announced new rules that would allow the f.b.i. to hold terror suspects both foreign and domestic longer without reading them their miranda rights and they made this change unilaterally now the rule dramatically expanded the one thousand nine hundred four public safety exception to miranda which was intended for an imminent threat of a memorandum which was reviewed by the wall street journal says that the policy applies to exceptional cases where investigators conclude that continued unwarned interrogation is necessary to collect valuable and timely intelligence not related to an immediate threat so now terror suspects don't need to read the miranda rights if there is a valuable intelligence to be had now that denigration from miranda came from this administration but the latest attack comes this week from the supreme court so the court ruled six to three on tuesday that if a suspect is already in prison they don't need to be read their miranda rights before being interrogated this specific case is whether or not an inmate's rape confession should have been suppressed because he did not receive
6:20 pm
a reading of his rights and all boil down to what the court considered custody justice alito wrote that somebody already in jail is quote unlikely to be alerted to speaking by a longing for prompt relief therefore he did not even need his rights ret now this ruling of blows yet another hole in the beleaguered miranda so in the years since nine eleven we've become accustomed to our legal and constitutional protections being eroded on a daily basis by the bush administration by the obama administration and also by the courts but it's high time the people wake up these rulings these rules are just about terrorists or rapists they're about everyone about protecting everyone in this country and the erosion of these rights are worthy of being protested and fought against period. well last night c.n.n. hosted the twentieth g.o.p. debate and one which may be the last now it's down to just four candidates on the stage mitt romney rick santorum ron paul and newt gingrich last night we heard a lot of personal attacks a lot of back and forth on voting records who balanced budget and went not so much
6:21 pm
on some of the biggest issues facing the country like unemployment the housing crisis or a current war in afghanistan so we have to ask of the campaign cycles become less about who can serve the people best and more about who can outdo the other on their conservativeness earlier i spoke with gary johnson former governor of new mexico and current libertarian presidential candidate he first told me that out of the final four aside from hoping that he would have still been there he had predicted rick santorum and newt gingrich to make it this far but i asked him if talking about balancing budgets which we heard so much of last night really matters sure candidates use it as a way to build up their credibility but at the end of the day as we've seen with the obama administration's budgets it really is up to congress to decide. well i think i think you can make a huge huge difference. the notion that i am promising to submit a balanced budget to congress in the year two thousand and thirteen i'm promising to veto expenditures that exceed revenue. suggest to you alone of the spending will
6:22 pm
be less and that's to narrow than any other possible scenario trouble is that no candidates are talking about submitting a balanced budget they talk about it but they're not talking about a document to actually show that ron paul is proposing a trillion dollar reduction but a balanced budget is a trillion four hundred billion dollar reduction so that's that's the difference and that's been a promise that i've been making all through this campaign i promise to submit a balanced budget congress is going to have to go along with that and they're going to end up overriding the veto but also just the spending will be less in that scenario than any other possible scenario that you can possibly come up with maybe that small government conservatives that we see on the stage are going far enough for you i want to bring up something that is a social issue and that we just can't keep hearing enough about. with these
6:23 pm
particular candidate specifically a question was asked yesterday about contraception whether they believe it or not and so i want to play some of the responses take a look. what we're seeing is a problem in our culture with respect to children being raised by children children being raised out of wedlock and the impact on society economically the impact on society with respect to to drug use and all host of other things when children have children there are bigger problems at stake in america and someone is going to go out there i will talk about the things along the lines of the pill creating a morality i don't see it that way i think the a morality creates the problem of wanting to use the pills so you don't blame the pills the reality of society that we have to deal with now governor i'm curious as to you know hear what you think of it when you hear these answers i mean these guys kind of sound like religious zealots in a way even ron paul isn't the whole point the response to have freedom of religion
6:24 pm
not somebody trying to legislate all morality. well this is contraception going to result in fewer pregnancies and fewer abortions. i just think there's a common sense of the interior that's getting lost or rowdy aside. look i think the majority of americans are really fiscally conservative but i think the majority of americans want to balance its budget but i think the majority of americans want government to allow us to make decisions that only you and i should make and when it comes to a woman and her using the economy trisection. that's her choice and that's a choice in my opinion be in the results of your pregnancy and fewer abortions something everybody ought to be able to get the i guess they were
6:25 pm
fractured families which which rick santorum is is so concerned about but there's another really interesting thing here calle says that ron paul recently released an ad attacking rick santorum which in a way i guess you could say is helping out mitt romney and yesterday he doubled down on it take a look governor some call you question the conservative fiscal conservative credentials of all these gentlemen but particularly this week senator santorum you have a new television ad that labels him a fake why because he's a fake. regular. there's been a lot of talk about an alliance between ron paul and mitt romney what's your take. well you know ron paul asked me for his endorsement in two thousand and eight i readily gave that endorsement when i left the republican fold and i'm now running as a libertarian i asked all my supporters to vote for ron paul i can't imagine ron paul
6:26 pm
and they were saying of mitt romney alone i don't know if you saw the the a.c.l.u. came out with a report of three weeks ago with a report card on all of the presidential candidates a.c.l.u. dedicated to civil liberties dedicated to the first ten amendments to the constitution and here's how that report went twenty four liberty torches was a perfect score mitt romney and rick santorum had zero liberty to urgent and it's. for liberty churches ron paul excuse me president obama had sixteen liberty torches ron paul at eighteen liberty tour which is then i had twenty one liberty to purchase so. i think there is a big difference between freedom and liberty candidates. and mitt center and mitt romney and newt gingrich so you're saying the you don't buy it you think
6:27 pm
that is that it's a lie way when people are thinking of there might be some kind of teamwork some kind of collaboration i guess you could say between the paul in the romney campaign i would find really hard to believe and as somebody that has supported dr paul as so many have. you know he has to he has to he has to do what he thinks is right but i can't imagine him. indorsing any one of the candidates that are up there i can't i can't imagine that but. what he did was point out if he did it part of me would you be disappointed if he dead. let me as you're alone but would you be disappointed if he did i'll just put that out there they were our own voice and this is their other libertarian buddy right the man who who you've endorsed and you know who has worked with you arwa let me ask you just one last question here too there still seems to be this crisis of leadership in the sense that. voters are
6:28 pm
just not ecstatic about one option that's out there do you think there's still a chance that there might be a brokered convention well i'm of course running for the libertarian nomination i know means is a done deal but that's what i'm engaged in right now and and unpressed that that it is the fact that seventy percent of americans right now are saying that they would consider voting for a third party candidate i think there is huge discontent and it isn't just republicans it's democrats also and it's independence and it's those that wooden door an early vote so huge discontent. republicans got that discontent too and you know talk of a brokered convention wow it's just just further evidence. of leadership that's not so that's not not servicing i wish ron paul the best in getting the republican nomination. i don't think that's going to happen at
6:29 pm
a brokered convention. i don't know i think it's going to lend itself to less unity. and then more time i guess i have to wait and see what happens governor thanks so much for joining us tonight. and i think you. are taking a break when we come back show itself the obama administration has come out in favor of an internet bill of rights but could actually work let us take a look at those. same. people calling like you said for free and fair elections. and we're still reporting from the. past you can hear behind me loud explosions.


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on